WINNER OF WW2 - Page 6

The USSR and its people were tired by the end of it. Very tired. Stalin and the Russian people were happy to have the USA and UK create the second front after D-Day. Russia bled enough and D-Day ensured that Russia could push forward more quickly and that the end of the war would be sooner.

BTW, the fact of it is, the USA and the UK could have driven straight into Berlin for one reason only. At the end, Germany intentionally left themselves wide open to the West and threw absolutely everything at Russia. The plan? Getting the nicer allies (USA and UK) to take as much of Germany as possible, most especially Berlin. Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin had already agreed to the exact divying up of German long before the fact and the USA and UK upheld their end of the bargain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dameon

That is true but people always seem to take away the D-Day factor if it wasn't for D-Day Hitler could have moved on into Russia. Though Russia did have more troops in Europe American forces let Russia get to Berlin first. UK and USA forces could have beat them thier but they chose not too.

And once again, you've completely lost me. What on earth are you talking about?

October 31st, 2004

USAFAUX2004

you seem to get lost a lot, but he saud that he believes that if britain and USA wanted they could get to Berlin before Russia

October 31st, 2004

godofthunder9010

"if it wasn't for D-Day Hitler could have moved on into Russia" <--- This is the part I didn't understand. That statement is saying that Hitler would have moved into Russia if D-Day hadn't happened. I think its a goof up...

--

October 31st, 2004

USAFAUX2004

oh isee. I guess he thinks that russia would eventually give in and loose

October 31st, 2004

Doppleganger

Quote:

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

The USSR and its people were tired by the end of it. Very tired. Stalin and the Russian people were happy to have the USA and UK create the second front after D-Day. Russia bled enough and D-Day ensured that Russia could push forward more quickly and that the end of the war would be sooner.

BTW, the fact of it is, the USA and the UK could have driven straight into Berlin for one reason only. At the end, Germany intentionally left themselves wide open to the West and threw absolutely everything at Russia. The plan? Getting the nicer allies (USA and UK) to take as much of Germany as possible, most especially Berlin. Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin had already agreed to the exact divying up of German long before the fact and the USA and UK upheld their end of the bargain.

Although the USSR were glad to see the Western Allies finally open up another front, it didn't really make all that much difference to them. On June 22, 1944, 3 years to the day after the start of Operation Barbarossa, the Soviets launched Operation Bagration, which was the final decisive battle of the Ostfront. Although the Red Army's casualties were enormous, the outcome of this battle was the destruction of Armeegruppe Mitte (Army Group Centre) as a fighting force. This would have happened in any case, D-Day or not.

I'm not sure you can say that Germany intentionally left themselves open to the West - that isn't true. What did happen is that many Wehrmacht units tried to make local ceasefire agreements with Western Allied troops so that they could then head to the East and fight the Soviet juggernaut, whom they considered the real enemy. All of the Allies were attempting to reach Berlin first. All of the Allies knew, in particular Churchill, that where they ended up would determine post-war zones of influence.

October 31st, 2004

Duty Honor Country

Quote:

Originally Posted by drilldownmaster2004

D-Day was planned because roosevelt and churchill both knew they could not let stalin get to france

OFF TOPIC: drilldownmaster2004, could you explain some of your posts a little more. A few quotes, dates, details or sources would go a long way to support your positions.

ON TOPIC: Churchill met with Stalin in 1942. Stalin wanted a landing in France ASAP. At the time, the Red Army was taking some serious heat on the Eastern Front. The exact planning for D-Day cannot be pinpointed. It was given the name Operation Overlord in 1943, while some sources say the plaining for a landing in France has been going on "for years in London." When Eisenhower took over allied command in JAN 1944, the only directive known for the invasion was to do it as soon as possible. Nothing was said about where, when and how at that time.

nothing I have ever read has said anything about stopping Stalin in France being the reason for D-Day. The only American Leader to openly say the Russians were bad was Patton. He paid dearly for his remarks even though he was right.

October 31st, 2004

Doppleganger

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doody

nothing I have ever read has said anything about stopping Stalin in France being the reason for D-Day. The only American Leader to openly say the Russians were bad was Patton. He paid dearly for his remarks even though he was right.

Patton only voiced what I'm sure every Western Allied leader was thinking from 1944 onwards. Churchill was also fairly outspoken about the post-war Soviet influence. It was as well that the Western Allies did remain allied with the USSR at the time because IMO we couldn't have stopped the Red Army had they decided to carry on going after they had made contact with the Anglo-American forces.

October 31st, 2004

Kick_in_the_eye

Happy I found this forum!

Who won WWII? I'm not sure what you mean by that... But of those who participated I would say USA; they came out clearly on top with compareble little loss in casualties and material damage. SU was strong before the war and continued to grow afterwards. The war itself though, was paid a high price for. And UK, well, is there any doubt they lost much of it's power after WWII?

I also like to comment on SU as part of the allies. Back in 39 there were three major aggressors in the world - Germany, Japan and Soviet (Italy I concider as a minor, and the Imperialists were in a "slope"). SU was in no way any "better" than Germany when it comes to territorial claims, and that was what the world had to deal with back then. When SU pressed Finland for territory, there were voices raised in UK to back the finns up. The Moltov-Ribbentrop Pact could not be seen as anything but as a mutual agreement between Germany and SU, even if the diplomacy/strategy behind it meant different things to the two. So to sum it up: I don't look at SU as one of the allies, but as an independent power

And about Stalins officer purges. Yes, SU suffered from losing competent leadership, but could these purges be of any advantage? Maybe, because SU was a totalitarian dictatorship that had to rely on hard unquestionable leadership. Many of those killed might have been in vain from Stalins paranoia, but some of them might actually have caused problems during the period (41, 42) when SU was seemingly close to collaps? Just a thought...

October 31st, 2004

godofthunder9010

Welcome to the Forums! Drop by the Welcoming Center as say hi when you get a chance, the mods prefer if you do.

I should put this gently. The Soviet Union is the unquesitoned Most Valuable Ally of World War II, but you are absolutely correct. They were an aggressor nation and they were extremely dangerous. Just like Germany, it was the leader of the nation that made it so. We are fortunate that the two most dangerous men in modern history went after each other rather than teaming up and going after the world. All by themselves, either one could have made a very successful run towards conquering the world. Finland shows that the SU was less likely to manage it, but by 1941 they had all the tools they needed and so did Germany. Because they destroyed each other, neither would have the opportunity to try the rest of the world.

In the case of Hitler, we can be very thankful that he didn't listen to his best commanders when they could have won things for him time and again. In the case of Stalin, the purging of the senior officers of the Red Army was probably the most catastrophic decapitation of an otherwise very powerful army in the History of the World! The best that can be said about it is that the Soviet Union didn't suffer the stubborness of military traditionalists and their mostly untested mass of officers got to learn modern warfare from scratch.

Minus the Stalin's purge, I think Barbarossa could have been a complete disaster for Germany.

October 31st, 2004

USAFAUX2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doody

The only American Leader to openly say the Russians were bad was Patton. He paid dearly for his remarks even though he was right.

Ohh so you think the world would be better if Germany and America were on the same team against THE USSR?